| Revision as of 16:38, 19 January 2020 editPrimefac (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators208,921 edits →"Out of process" actions on templates: reply (ec)← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 13:48, 18 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,296,120 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 27) (bot |
| (721 intermediate revisions by 89 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|counter = 26 |
|
|counter = 27 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
| Line 8: |
Line 8: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{WikiProject Deletion}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|1={{WikiProject Deletion}} |
|
{{WPBannerMeta|PROJECT=Templates}} |
|
{{WikiProject Templates}}}} |
|
{{central|Misplaced Pages talk:Templates for discussion/Holding cell|Template talk:Tfd links|Template talk:Tfd2|Module talk:Tfd links}} |
|
{{central|Misplaced Pages talk:Templates for discussion/Holding cell|Template talk:Tfd links|Template talk:Tfd2|Module talk:Tfd links}} |
|
{{XFD backlog|right}} |
|
{{XFD backlog|right}} |
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
== Chinese name infobox merges == |
|
== Inline styles? == |
|
|
{{mdt|Template_talk:Afd_top#Inline_styles?|2=] (]) 07:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{cot}} |
|
Our most long-standing merge requests are {{tl|Infobox name module}} and {{tl|Infobox East Asian name}}, both into (or with) {{tl|Infobox Chinese}}, dating from April and May 2017, respectively. Is there an issue holding these up? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 10:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Right now it's <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext"><div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed archived mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-progressive-subtle, #F3F9FF); color: var(--color-base, #000); margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"></syntaxhighlight> |
|
:As usual it's mostly that noone has gotten to it. I'll give {{tl|Infobox East Asian name}} a go tonight. --] (]) 11:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
This seems to be some kind of dark mode thing? I don't really understand though -- shouldn't we be trying to use stylesheets for stuff and not inline styles? Moreover, we already have styles (e.g. <code>afd</code>, <code>vfd</code>, <code>xfd-closed</code>), I assume these are styled somewhere already -- why do we have inline styles in the afd-top template at all? It seems like a gigantic headache. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 05:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Yeah. Some of them just ''look'' complicated. Never know 'til you try, though; the subdivisions merger was actually not as bad as I thought. ] (]) 20:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{ping|Trialpears}} Any joy? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 13:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{u|Pigsonthewing}} {{tl|Infobox East Asian name}} is mostly ready and will be added to my long list of things I should do this weekend, {{tl|Infobox name module}} is significantly trickier and will require more module changes. {{u|Trappist the monk}} may want to help out though? The main reason for the stop now was the drawn out RM which decide to keep {{tl|Infobox Chinese}} at its current unfortunate name. ‑‑] (]) 14:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Pinging {{ping|Sohom Datta}} who was the one who made this edit. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 05:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Log time glitch == |
|
|
|
::My thought process here for adding inline styles was twofold: |
|
|
::* I was unsure if adding ] could cause the ] limit to be breached on bigger pages |
|
|
::* If the {{tl|afd top}} template was substituted, it could cause issues due to the fact that the styles might not being carried over |
|
|
::To my knowledge <code>afd</code> <code>vfd</code> <code>xfd-closed</code> don't apply any specific styles and while the inline styles do take precedence over other user-generated styles, the behaviour of the inline CSS will be analogous to it's previous behaviour if the CSS variables defined for vector-2022 are absent. ] (]) 08:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{cob}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Discussion at ]== |
|
Hey, this doesn't exactly reflect well on me I guess, but I added a new entry to the log at midnight, September 23. The time in the signature is 00:01 on the 24th, but it's under the heading of the 23rd. Also, a minor thing that isn't a problem: That signature is an hour slow, it's 01:14. ] (]) 00:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 03:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] --> |
|
:{{u|MaelstromOfSilence}}, it looks (based on the lack of tags) that you added it manually to the 23rd. If you had wanted it on the 24th, you should have edited the 24th subpage. However, it's not the end of the world, as a few minutes either way isn't going to break things. ] (]) 00:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::Ah, okay, thank you {{u|Primefac}}, my bad.] (]) 00:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No worries, weird stuff like this happens all the time. If you think you might be nominating other things in the future (or just want a cool tool), you should enable and use ], which automates a lot of the annoying stuff like adding the nomination template to the page ''and'' the XfD log. ] (]) 00:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
==Discussion at ]== |
|
|
] You are invited to join the discussion at ].  (A proposal to add edit links to the "Old discussions" section) ] ] 02:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC){{Z48}}<!-- ] --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Archives for holding cell? == |
|
== Tfd top dark mode == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{re|JPxG|Sohom_Datta}} Related to ] ({{slink|Template_talk:Afd_top#Inline_styles?}}), can we have a similar dark mode implementation for the ] template {{t|tfd top}}? ] (]) 08:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Shouldn't we archive the holding cell? Plenty of discussions occur in the holding cell that could potentially be useful in the future. While it is avalible in the page history, having them in archives makes it significantly easier to find since it shows up in the normal search function. I could make a quick bot that archives anything marked with {{tl|done}} or similar. ‑‑] (]) 12:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:With the exception of a few big discussions recently, there is very rarely (if ever) discussion about templates in the holding cell. I don't know if there would be a ton of use. ] (]) 22:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::I guess it's just me who's using it like that then. I still think that many of the discussions recently ought to be archived and having the option of tagging items with discussions as {{done}} to prompt a bot to archive it would be beneficial. Would you object to me implementing this? ‑‑] (]) 22:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Let's back this up a second before we jump straight into whether I object wholesale; I mainly don't see what you're trying to accomplish. So, some questions: |
|
|
:::#What type of discussions would be archived? Does the discussion about the {{t|Copied}} merge (]) need to be archived? Would ''all'' template listings be archived? |
|
|
:::#Where would they be archived? |
|
|
:::#Based on #1, how frequently are you seeing conversations that would require archiving being removed? |
|
|
:::I won't tell you what ''my'' answers would be to necessitate this process, as I'm curious to see what yours are first as it was your idea. ] (]) 23:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Sure, |
|
|
::::#No, I don't see a particular need to archive that short ecxchange, it doesn't discuss anything about the implementation it self, just who's going to perform it (sorry for the delay, have been doing quite some non-Misplaced Pages related programming). In general I don't think all discussions should be archived, but the option to do so would be valuable. |
|
|
::::#] seems like the obvious choice. |
|
|
::::#A few times a month, take for instance which contains 8 discussions, all of which I could see a small benefit in archiving, especially since several of them got another reply or two. This is admittedly an extreme case since a few have stayed there for many months and this falls into a period where I started a lot of discussions for educational reasons as well as a quite large backlog, but even just in the last month there were four I would concider appropriate to archive (, , , ) |
|
|
::::I really don't see any harm to it and a not insignificant benefit. ‑‑] (]) 23:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Eh... I'm still not convinced it's necessary, but I don't mind waiting for some other opinions. ] (]) 01:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== TFD linking discussion == |
|
== "Out of process" actions on templates == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is ] about changing how we notify users about TFDs. Please join in the conversation. ] (]) 18:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
I've had a couple of recent TfD discussions concerning "out-of-process" actions on templates. |
|
|
|
|
|
By that I mean— |
|
|
* the orphaning, or |
|
|
* substituting (in the case of templates not mandated to be substituted)— |
|
|
of a template prior to listing it at TfD, or while a discussion at TfD is pending. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes this is accompanied by a subsequent claim in the nomination that the template is unused or has few transclusions (because of the beforehand orphaning or substituting), and usually without disclosing that the disuse or low use is due to the prior actions to orphan or substitute it. |
|
|
|
|
|
There is a long history of identifying when this happens, and sometimes admonishing the editors responsible for it, in TfD discussions. I gave a quick look to try to find one of the earliest examples of this, and ]. However, as much as I can tell, a proscription against "out-of-process" actions is not in our guidelines. |
|
|
|
|
|
So, is there a consensus that this is a proscribed practice (acknowledging that there would be exceptions for templates that are, for example, immediately breaking pages)? And if so, should it be documented somewhere? --] (]) 15:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:If someone orphans a template, and then tries to TFD it based on it being "unused", and someone notices this, then by all means it should be discussed at the TFD. Occasionally it will be a valid orphaning (i.e. "single use template that I subst'd into the article"), but if it's been done purely for the purposes of having the template deleted then the reason of "unused" is no longer valid and a better reason will be needed. |
|
|
:To answer your last question, I could potentially see something along the lines of "it is inappropriate to orphan a template prior to nomination" in the guideline, but with so much text on the page already I don't know if it would really do any good. Plus, I'm not sure it's that common of an issue. ] (]) 15:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::The perpetual problem of the choice not to document something on Misplaced Pages is the doubting that a consensus exists about it. I think there's a larger question about whether some of what appears on ] shouldn't be made a summary of prospective content at a page like ] and other policy and guideline pages (perhaps even a new page), which could contain better advice about templates and when each of the outcomes we use is appropriate. --] (]) 16:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:Bsherr is apparently referring to my TfD nominations ], ] (two sections of the same page), albeit without the courtesy of a ping or notification. In the former case, I substituted a ''single use'' wrapper, ''leaving behind'' the template that it wrapped. I ''subsequently'' nominated the wrapper template for deletion ''noting the substitution in my nomination'', on the basis that it {{tq|"can be replaced by a more generic 'busy' template with suitable message content"}}. In the second case, I removed ''just three'' outdated instances of a time-limited template ("I am busy with exams") from the pages of people who have not edited in the last two years or more. I then nominated the ''non orphaned'' template for deletion, again on the basis that it {{tq|"can be replaced by a more generic 'busy' template with suitable message content"}}. Having failed to provide the requested evidence to substantiate his allegations that I acted "out of process" and was being "disingenuous", Bsherr has instead brought us here. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 16:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::Because I'm simply asking about documenting the guidance. Not about your conduct. And I said in that discussion that I would start this discussion on this talk page, which I assumed you would be watching. --] (]) 16:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{ec}} Well, as I said above, the argument here is both "unused" and "unnecessary", and I'd say that your removals (with or without the subsequent TFD) was reasonable. I think raising the issue here is perfectly reasonable, especially since it was done without specifying either the editor or the templates in question. ] (]) 16:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
Moved to Template talk:Afd top § Inline styles? – 172.97.141.219 (talk) 07:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § RfC: Enacting T5 (unused template subpages). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)